|
Post by montyburns on Jan 22, 2016 20:35:48 GMT -5
First, I am not up on this board enough to know the details about the drama regarding tigerlaw and Elvis leaving (I've only been reading the Glen Frey thread!), but they were certainly great sources of info, so lets pour a 40 oz a have a moment of silence...
To the point though, and perhaps this follows in the vein of pro-management/anti-APA accusations I was reading in the tiger/elvis leaving threads, but the SSA DC is proposing to have AAJs hear cases. I am not sure what type of cases, but I was wondering how this could possibly be kosher. AAJs are not hired through OPM, they are direct hires by SSA and you have to have time as a GS-14 to be considered. I am puling this info from this thread: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3122/appeals-council-job-vacancies
The practical effect of this and other requirements is basically that the majority of people who become AAJs are HODs and regional muckety-mucks. No offense, but Judges that are all from management crops is kind of scary.
Now I can appreciate that SSA is frustrated with the pace of the OPM process (aren't we all), but my first read on this proposal is that it cannot be compliant with the regulations re: SSA hearings, which require a real life, APA-compliant ALJ. Am I misguided in this?
Honest question, not trying to stir any pots here, I just don't see how this is possible. TIA
Monty C. Burns
|
|
|
Post by blondswede on Jan 22, 2016 21:11:38 GMT -5
I found this the other day, but since no one had mentioned it, I didn't say anything. It's from the AALJ. www.aalj.org/document/2968/aalj-newsletter-january-19-2016BTW, I have been lurking for a couple of months now, without much to say because I'm so confused by all the minute details, just trying to learn about this entire process. I am one of those "not within the range of the higher-scored group" of March 2013 online testers. I didn't receive my letter stating I didn't make the cut until March 2014. Oh well, I applied on a lark anyway. Then, I got the email in August 2015, stating that my ineligible rating had been canceled, and went to DC in December 2015.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 22, 2016 21:15:14 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure 8 of the 9 hired were appeals council attorneys.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jan 22, 2016 21:50:49 GMT -5
I found this the other day, but since no one had mentioned it, I didn't say anything. It's from the AALJ. www.aalj.org/document/2968/aalj-newsletter-january-19-2016BTW, I have been lurking for a couple of months now, without much to say because I'm so confused by all the minute details, just trying to learn about this entire process. I am one of those "not within the range of the higher-scored group" of March 2013 online testers. I didn't receive my letter stating I didn't make the cut until March 2014. Oh well, I applied on a lark anyway. Then, I got the email in August 2015, stating that my ineligible rating had been canceled, and went to DC in December 2015. Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who found this odd. I feel slightly less stupid now. Of course, the fact that you are going to become a Judge "on a lark" is a reason I don't come here much anymore- it's depressing as hell. No offense to you, I'm sure you're qualified and will do great.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jan 22, 2016 21:57:57 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure 8 of the 9 hired were appeals council attorneys. I'm interested to hear too what types of cases aaljs will be deciding
How is this possible? Do AAs with OAO go up to 14??? Man I missed the boat on that. They opened up an office near my old office, and rumor was they wanted to start people at 9 (!!!).
And it looks like their going to do "non-disability" cases (SSRI overpayments? DIB overpayments? validity of marriages? ) and remands (?) per the link provided by blondeswede. This latter part strikes me as particularly bizarre. The AAJ that granted the request for review is going to remand the case to...himself?? (and wouldn't that be a disability case?)
That said I always thought that if the AC was going to remand the case with the strong suggestion that it be reversed, they should just own it and reverse it themselves. But what do I know, I'm just a SAA/janitor!
|
|
|
Post by blondswede on Jan 22, 2016 22:08:52 GMT -5
What I meant by saying that I applied to be an ALJ "on a lark" was that I have been a workers' compensation trial attorney for decades, and had never thought about doing anything else. I didn't know the first thing about being a federal ALJ, but thought I might as well file the application, assuming there was no chance I would make the grade. Then, once I got the, "you are not good enough" letter, I forgot about the whole thing.
My comment was not, by any means, flippant, nor did it mean that I don't take the possibility of becoming a federal ALJ as serious business. Going through this process, going to DC and being interviewed by three judges (I assume they were judges), and then reading so many of the posts on this board has given me new life, frankly. The thought of moving cross-country to a new city would have, not that long ago, scared the hell out of me. But now, I'm so excited, it could not happen early enough.
And you are right, I think I would be a very good ODAR ALJ. My entire career has been spent dealing with medical and vocational issues, from reading thousands of pages of medical records, to taking physicians' depositions or cross-examining them before our ALJs, from analyzing a claimant's local labor market utilizing her residual functional capacities in order to prove or disprove her entitlement to total disability benefits (I've worked both for insurers and claimants), to writing position statements or proposed orders from 5 to 30 pages long.
So, after having gone completely off topic of this thread, I apologize if I offended you or anyone else by my "on a lark" comment. It was not meant to.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jan 22, 2016 23:33:58 GMT -5
Well damn, looks like I need to go back to the east coast and get me a bloated AO job. Thanks for info lonely
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jan 22, 2016 23:35:18 GMT -5
What I meant by saying that I applied to be an ALJ "on a lark" was that I have been a workers' compensation trial attorney for decades, and had never thought about doing anything else. I didn't know the first thing about being a federal ALJ, but thought I might as well file the application, assuming there was no chance I would make the grade. Then, once I got the, "you are not good enough" letter, I forgot about the whole thing. My comment was not, by any means, flippant, nor did it mean that I don't take the possibility of becoming a federal ALJ as serious business. Going through this process, going to DC and being interviewed by three judges (I assume they were judges), and then reading so many of the posts on this board has given me new life, frankly. The thought of moving cross-country to a new city would have, not that long ago, scared the hell out of me. But now, I'm so excited, it could not happen early enough. And you are right, I think I would be a very good ODAR ALJ. My entire career has been spent dealing with medical and vocational issues, from reading thousands of pages of medical records, to taking physicians' depositions or cross-examining them before our ALJs, from analyzing a claimant's local labor market utilizing her residual functional capacities in order to prove or disprove her entitlement to total disability benefits (I've worked both for insurers and claimants), to writing position statements or proposed orders from 5 to 30 pages long. So, after having gone completely off topic of this thread, I apologize if I offended you or anyone else by my "on a lark" comment. It was not meant to. Lol, none taken. Though I may alter I disagreeessment - you are likely egregiously overqualified! I was a wc atty for 7 years pre odar, so I'm glad that you made it (though I strugle to comprehend how you were not high scoring enough initially). And all without relentlessly lurking this board for years. The good news, as you may have figured out, is that you are pretty much through the hardest/most arbitrary part of the process. Hope to see you on the bench, and please don't dump on your subordinates too hard when you get there!
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jan 23, 2016 0:17:01 GMT -5
Yea Monty the appeals council is an interesting place from my understanding 12 and 13s decide whether the ac should grant review. The analyst opinion is then reviewed by a 14 appeals officer if the AO agrees it should not be reviewed then its done. If review should be granted the analyst conclusions go to 2 AC members for signature. Aalj and AO may be Odars best non management positions Wow all that and it still returns nonsensical remands and passes on clear remands on the regular. ODARS finest indeed!
|
|
|
Post by blondswede on Jan 23, 2016 0:28:11 GMT -5
I don't know about being overqualified, although 28 years should give me some brownie points. If I were to be so lucky as to join the ALJ corps, I would most definitely never dump on my subordinates. Before law school, I was a state employee, the division clerk for a judge. I know what it's like to be a worker bee, and have never taken staff or other subordinates for granted. If anything, I bend the other way, doing their work because I need it done before they can get to it. Although, reading a lot of these posts as alerted me to the possibility that that would be ill advised ODAR.
Thanks for the welcome!
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jan 23, 2016 0:34:15 GMT -5
All right, blondswede, don't forget to give what you get and keep us updated!
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 23, 2016 8:53:28 GMT -5
Yea Monty the appeals council is an interesting place from my understanding 12 and 13s decide whether the ac should grant review. The analyst opinion is then reviewed by a 14 appeals officer if the AO agrees it should not be reviewed then its done. If review should be granted the analyst conclusions go to 2 AC members for signature. Aalj and AO may be Odars best non management positions Wow all that and it still returns nonsensical remands and passes on clear remands on the regular. ODARS finest indeed! Because of the endless bean counting, AC analysts have ~ 15 minutes to review each case to make their recommendation to the AC officer. Not really a surprise so many slip through the cracks
|
|
|
Post by alj on Jan 23, 2016 12:34:03 GMT -5
First, I am not up on this board enough to know the details about the drama regarding tigerlaw and Elvis leaving (I've only been reading the Glen Frey thread!), but they were certainly great sources of info, so lets pour a 40 oz a have a moment of silence...
To the point though, and perhaps this follows in the vein of pro-management/anti-APA accusations I was reading in the tiger/elvis leaving threads, but the SSA DC is proposing to have AAJs hear cases. I am not sure what type of cases, but I was wondering how this could possibly be kosher. AAJs are not hired through OPM, they are direct hires by SSA and you have to have time as a GS-14 to be considered. I am puling this info from this thread: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/3122/appeals-council-job-vacancies
The practical effect of this and other requirements is basically that the majority of people who become AAJs are HODs and regional muckety-mucks. No offense, but Judges that are all from management crops is kind of scary.
Now I can appreciate that SSA is frustrated with the pace of the OPM process (aren't we all), but my first read on this proposal is that it cannot be compliant with the regulations re: SSA hearings, which require a real life, APA-compliant ALJ. Am I misguided in this?
Honest question, not trying to stir any pots here, I just don't see how this is possible. TIA
Monty C. Burns If the Agency says it is OK, then surely it is OK? The Agency would never bend the rules . . . would it?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 23, 2016 14:30:18 GMT -5
Wow all that and it still returns nonsensical remands and passes on clear remands on the regular. ODARS finest indeed! Because of the endless bean counting, AC analysts have ~ 15 minutes to review each case to make their recommendation to the AC officer. Not really a surprise so many slip through the cracks That, and the people who are reviewing these cases are human beings. As humans, they will make mistakes. Everyone in the process will at some point or another, from the case intake person on up. That said, most of the remands I've seen in my time as an attorney or ALJ have been valid. My only gripe with the AC is there is no way to challenge a mistake or that they will remand decisions due to immaterial reasons (claimant has $9000 of earnings in 2010, could be SGA, send it back to evaluate at step 1 in your step 4/5 denial). You simply have to suck it up and go through the entire process again.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Jan 23, 2016 15:37:46 GMT -5
Because of the endless bean counting, AC analysts have ~ 15 minutes to review each case to make their recommendation to the AC officer. Not really a surprise so many slip through the cracks That, and the people who are reviewing these cases are human beings. As humans, they will make mistakes. Everyone in the process will at some point or another, from the case intake person on up. That said, most of the remands I've seen in my time as an attorney or ALJ have been valid. My only gripe with the AC is there is no way to challenge a mistake or that they will remand decisions due to immaterial reasons (claimant has $9000 of earnings in 2010, could be SGA, send it back to evaluate at step 1 in your step 4/5 denial). You simply have to suck it up and go through the entire process again. I agree, obviously 15 minutes is not much time to ID these things. Your example is illustrative of my desire for the AC to just make the call rather than remand it. Just take the initiative and make the call as to whether it's SGA or not. I am not opposed to that sort of determination at that level. If it doesn't impact the outcome, it should not be remanded. (Similarly I have seen remand on a favorable where they say something looked like it was severe when it was fond not to be: no-one is ever going to appeal that). It's a denial, who cares if it was SGA. I mean that's clearly harmless error. I suppose in those jurisdictions where res judicata applies to findings of PRW it might make a difference, but is it worth adding another hearing to the docket and increasing the backlog? Clearly not. Nevertheless, I see those a lot (though as you say some are legit, would-be remands if taken to Fed DC). I'm venting now, but the demand for "quality" whether in-line, pre/post effectuation or AC review seems to focus on having perfect decisions and ignores the actual impact of the error to the detriment, ultimately, of the claimants and public.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Jan 24, 2016 13:52:25 GMT -5
Because of the endless bean counting, AC analysts have ~ 15 minutes to review each case to make their recommendation to the AC officer. Not really a surprise so many slip through the cracks That, and the people who are reviewing these cases are human beings. As humans, they will make mistakes. Everyone in the process will at some point or another, from the case intake person on up. That said, most of the remands I've seen in my time as an attorney or ALJ have been valid. My only gripe with the AC is there is no way to challenge a mistake or that they will remand decisions due to immaterial reasons (claimant has $9000 of earnings in 2010, could be SGA, send it back to evaluate at step 1 in your step 4/5 denial). You simply have to suck it up and go through the entire process again. You can challenge a mistake or part of a remand order that no longer applies through a request for clarification, but it is a pain in the butt to do so and I believe you have to go through the RO. HALLEX I-2-1-85 provides that if an ALJ cannot carry out the directive in the remand or it has been rendered moot, there are processes for communicating with the AC and possibly altering the remand order. Unfortunately what you are describing sounds like a formal request for clarification, as described in I-2-1-86.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 25, 2016 10:48:35 GMT -5
The Appeals Council can hold hearings and issue its own decisions. Is that what we're talking about here? That would only apply to cases that have already been through the ALJ process. The immediately above me posts talk about the AC making more decisions instead of remands, a proposal with which I agree. Is that what the original poster was talking about? Hires to do more AC actions to avoid so many remands? I would think everyone would like that. ??
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Jan 25, 2016 10:56:32 GMT -5
I think any new activity that keeps the AC busy is great! Let them do Non-Disability decisions, coloring books, or Playdough, as long as they aren't giving me a remand for not addressing "deconditioning" as a severe impairment!
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 25, 2016 10:57:13 GMT -5
The Appeals Council can hold hearings and issue its own decisions. Is that what we're talking about here? That would only apply to cases that have already been through the ALJ process. The immediately above me posts talk about the AC making more decisions instead of remands, a proposal with which I agree. Is that what the original poster was talking about? Hires to do more AC actions to avoid so many remands? I would think everyone would like that. ?? No. there is a project/proposal (I'm not sure what stage it's at IE soon to be in place, or just discussion) about using AAJs to hear certain types of cases, which have not been through the ALJ process.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 25, 2016 10:58:52 GMT -5
The Appeals Council can hold hearings and issue its own decisions. Is that what we're talking about here? That would only apply to cases that have already been through the ALJ process. The immediately above me posts talk about the AC making more decisions instead of remands, a proposal with which I agree. Is that what the original poster was talking about? Hires to do more AC actions to avoid so many remands? I would think everyone would like that. ?? No. there is a project/proposal (I'm not sure what stage it's at IE soon to be in place, or just discussion) about using AAJs to hear certain types of cases, which have not been through the ALJ process. Oh. Well. I don't like that.
|
|